Resurrection, not transmigration
The doctrine of the resurrection is large and hard to explain. If any doctrine needs a wise man, and one far advanced, it needs one to set forth what is worthy of God and the grandeur of the doctrine, which teaches that what the Scriptures call the tent of the soul has the character of a seed: the tent in which the righteous groan, being burdened, not wishing to put it off but to put on over it (2 Corinthians 5:4). Celsus did not understand this doctrine; because he heard about it from unlearned people who could not set it forth with any reasoning, he mocks what is said. So, in addition to what we said about it earlier, it is useful to note only this in reply to his argument: we do not speak of resurrection, as Celsus thinks, because we have misheard the doctrine of transmigration of souls.
We speak of it because we know that the soul, which in its own nature is bodiless and invisible, when it is in any bodily place, needs a body suited to the nature of that place. This body it wears, at times having stripped off what was necessary before but is superfluous for its second state, and at times having put it on over what it had before, since it needs a better garment for the purer, ethereal, and heavenly places. So, when it came to birth here, it put off the membrane that was useful for its life in the womb of the mother who carried it, while it was there; and beneath that it had put on what was necessary for one who was to live on earth.
Then again, since there is a “tent” with an earthly house that is in some way necessary to the tent, the Scriptures say that the earthly house “of the tent” is dissolved, but that the tent puts on over itself “a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Corinthians 5:1). And the men of God say that “the perishable” puts on “imperishability,” which differs from the imperishable, and that “the mortal” puts on “immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:53), which is something other than the immortal. For as wisdom is related to the wise, and righteousness to the righteous, and peace to the peaceful, so imperishability is related to the imperishable, and immortality to the immortal. See, then, to what the passage urges us, when it speaks of putting on imperishability and immortality. Like garments on one who has put them on and is wrapped in them, these do not allow the one who wears them to perish or die.
We have ventured even this much because of the man who did not understand what we mean by the resurrection, and for that reason laughs and mocks at a doctrine he does not know.
Greek
Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγον (πολὺν ὄντα καὶ δυσερμήνευτον καὶ δεόμενον σοφοῦ εἴπερ τι ἄλλο τῶν δογμάτων καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον διαβεβηκότος, ἵνα τὸ ἄξιον τοῦ θεοῦ παραστήσῃ καὶ τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς τοῦ δόγματος, διδάσκοντος λόγον ἔχειν σπέρματος τὸ καλούμενον κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς σκῆνος τῖς ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ „οἱ“ δίκαιοι „ὄντες“ στενάζουσι „βαρούμενοι,“ μὴ θέλοντες αὐτὸ „ἐκδύσασθαι ἀλλ᾿ ἐπενδύσασθαι“) μὴ νοήσας ὁ Κέλσος τῷ ἀπὸ ἰδιωτῶν καὶ μηδενὶ λόγῳ παραστῆσαι δυναμένων ἀκηκοέναι περὶ αὐτοῦ χλευάζει τὸ λεγόμενον, χρήσιμον πρὸς τοῖς ἀνωτέρω εἰρημένοις ἡμῖν περὶ τούτου τοῦτο μόνον ὑποσημειώσασθαι πρὸς τὸν λόγον, ὅτι οὐχ, ὡς οἴεται Κέλσος, τῆς μετενσωματώσεως παρακούσαντες τὰ περὶ ἀναστάσεώς φαμεν ἀλλ᾿ εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ τῇ ἑαυτῆς φύσει ἀσώματος καὶ ἀόρατος ψυχὴ ἐν παντὶ σωματικῷ τόπῳ τυγχάνουσα δέεται σώματος οἰκείου τῇ φύσει τῷ τόπῳ ἐκείνῳ· ὅπερ ὅπου μὲν φορεῖ ἀπεκδυσαμένη (τὸ) πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον μὲν περισσὸν δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ δεύτερα. ὅπου δὲ ἐπενδυσαμένη ᾧ πρότερον εἶχε, δεομένη κρείττονος ἐνδύματος εἰς τοὺς καθαρωτέρους καὶ αἰθερίους καὶ οὐρανίους τόπους. καὶ ἀπεξεδύσατο μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν τῇδε γένεσιν ἐρχομένη τὸ χρήσιμον πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ τῆς κυούσης, ἕως ἦν ἐν αὐτῇ, χορίον· ἐνεδύσατο δὲ ὑπ᾿ ἐκεῖνο ὃ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον τῷ ἐπὶ γῆς μέλλοντι διαζῆν. εἶτα πάλιν ὄντος τινὸς „σκήνους“ ἐπιγείου οἰκίας, ἀναγκαίας που τῷ σκήνει, καὶ καταλύεσθαι μέν φασιν οἱ λόγοι τὴν ἐπίγειον οἰκίαν „τοῦ σκήνους“ τὸ δὲ σκῆνος ἐπενδύσασθαι „οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.“ λέγουσι δὲ οἱ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι „τὸ“ μὲν „φθαρτὸν ἐνδύσασθαι αὐτὸ ἀφθαρσίαν,“ τὴν διαφέρουσαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτον, „τὸ“ δὲ „θνητὸν ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν,“ ἕτερον τυγχάνον τοῦ ἀθανάτου. ὃν γὰρ λόγον ἔχει σοφία πρὸς τὸ σοφὸν καὶ δικαιοσύνη πρὸς τὸ δίκαιον καὶ εἰρήνη πρὸς τὸ εἰρηνικὸν, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἀφθαρσία μὲν πρὸς ἄφθαρτον ἀθανασία δὲ πρὸς ἀθάνατον. ὅρα οὖν ἐφ᾿ οἷα προτρέπει ὁ λόγος, „ἐνδύσασθαι“ λέγων τὴν „ἀφθαρσίαν“ καὶ τὴν „ἀθανασίαν,“ ἅτινα ὡς ἐνδύματα τῷ ἐνδυσαμένῳ καὶ περιεχομένῳ τῶν τοιούτων ἐνδυμάτων οὐκ ἐᾷ φθαρῆναι ἢ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν περικείμενον αὐτά. καὶ ταῦτα δ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀποτετολμήσθω διὰ τὸν μὴ νοήσαντα ὅ τι ποτὲ λέγομεν τὴν ἀνάστασιν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γελῶντα καὶ χλευάζοντα ὃν οὐκ οἶδε λόγον.